Why is Jon's name Aegon?

Recommended Posts

Why not Jon Targaryen, or Jaehaerys Targaryen, or Rickard Targaryen? Or, since it seems like he was never going to get an official naming ceremony and Ned was going to put him in hiding right away, why not just (unnamed boy) Targaryen, who will have to choose his name if he's ever revealed as Rhaegar's heir?

They've already told us that Rhaegar's first son—who, as far as I know, Lyanna should at this point believe is still alive and well—is named Aegon. At least Thoros referred to him by name in season 3, and I think there are a couple of others.

If there were some compelling reason for D&D to reuse the name, maybe it would be worth it anyway, but I can't figure out what that reason might be. Are they drawing a connection to one of the five kings named Aegon? Or planning to drop a prophecy next season that names Rhaegar's son Aegon by name, and the big secret is that it means Jon rather than his brother? All I can think is that they deliberately wanted us—and by us, I mean the book readers—to connect him to the other Aegon as a winking nod to the Little Griff story they cut. But they have to know that book snobs will be unhappy with that, and nobody else will get it.

In-universe, it's much the same question, but I suppose there might be a different answer to "what were D&D thinking" and "what was Lyanna thinking".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I believe his real name may actually be Aegon in the books, too, though.

I feel Rhaegar was so obsessed with the prophecy of the prince that was promised that the name of his child would be massively important. The fact he named his first child Aegon shows he feels there is something in that name.

After he realised that he needed to have a child with a Stark woman, that didn't change; the child still needed, for some reason to Rhaegar, to be named Aegon. It makes sense that he would expect his child to need to be named after maybe the most legendary of all Targaryens, Aegon the Conqueror.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It could simply be that Rhaegar believed the Prince that was Promised was to be named Aegon. When he believed his first son to be the PtwP, he named him Aegon. Then something else he read / saw / foresaw clarified his understanding, and he did the same with his second son.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This may well turn out to be a show innovation. The books already have an Aegon Targaryen in them. It's a fair shout that D&D are merging book Aegon's role with Jon's, and the name could simply be a reflection of that. The fun thing is figuring out which parts of show Jon's story will turn out to be book Jon's, and how much will turn out to be book Aegon's.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Could be an allusion to Aegon the Conqueror and how Jon is gonna reunite Westeross. Also with how often Targaryens reuse the same few names over and over, not surprised.

At that point in the war when Ned marches south it's after they took KL and killed the Mad King. When that happened Rhaegars other children were killed so there would be no other Aegons.

Out-of-universe, it's hardly obvious, and almost ironic, to give Jon the name that goes with Dany's story.

And in-universe, Rhaegar's other children were still alive last time Rhaegar was at the ToJ, so that would have to mean it was entirely Lyanna's choice—and how did she know the other children were dead when she was isolated at the ToJ with no ravens?

And sure, while Targaryens do reuse names, we don't see them reusing the same name twice for two (half-)brothers like George Foreman.

27 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I believe his real name may actually be Aegon in the books, too, though.

I feel Rhaegar was so obsessed with the prophecy of the prince that was promised that the name of his child would be massively important. The fact he named his first child Aegon shows he feels there is something in that name.

After he realised that he needed to have a child with a Stark woman, that didn't change; the child still needed, for some reason to Rhaegar, to be named Aegon. It makes sense that he would expect his child to need to be named after maybe the most legendary of all Targaryens, Aegon the Conqueror.

First, the usual theory is that he was trying to fulfill the "three heads" thing, and giving two of the heads the same name is pretty weird.

Also, we haven't heard anything about the prophecy specifying a name. Do any other prophecies in the book specify a name?

Also, why should Aegon the Conqueror have anything to do with the PtwP? There could be some connection, but, if so, it's not obvious to me, so if you (or the other people who wrote similar answers) see one, I'd love to hear it.

I appreciate that you're trying to come up with an answer instead of just punting like me, averde, and Kingmonkey, but I'm still not seeing the logic here, or any evidence.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

First, the usual theory is that he was trying to fulfill the "three heads" thing, and giving two of the heads the same name is pretty weird.

Also, we haven't heard anything about the prophecy specifying a name. Do any other prophecies in the book specify a name?

Also, why should Aegon the Conqueror have anything to do with the PtwP? There could be some connection, but, if so, it's not obvious to me, so if you (or the other people who wrote similar answers) see one, I'd love to hear it.

I appreciate that you're trying to come up with an answer instead of just punting like me, averde, and Kingmonkey, but I'm still not seeing the logic here, or any evidence.

If you thought your Targaryen child was going to be part of a prophecy that would make the child special in some way, I would have thought Aegon would be the most likely name to choose, given how legendary Aegon the Conqueror was.

I think any other Targaryen name would have been completely random. A lot of people suspected he was called Jaehaerys, but why was that? Others thought Aemon, but why was that?

The only names I think that would have relevance would be Aegon or maybe even Rhaegar. I also once thought Viserys, as it would represented the trinity of Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya. But I do think Aegon is the most sensible name for Jon given that he could be the man to reunite the Kingdoms that Aegon won.

This is based on nothing more than my opinion, though. Take of that what you will.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rhaegar's other children were still alive last time Rhaegar was at the ToJ, so that would have to mean it was entirely Lyanna's choice—and how did she know the other children were dead when she was isolated at the ToJ with no ravens?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I believe his real name may actually be Aegon in the books, too, though.

I feel Rhaegar was so obsessed with the prophecy of the prince that was promised that the name of his child would be massively important. The fact he named his first child Aegon shows he feels there is something in that name.

After he realised that he needed to have a child with a Stark woman, that didn't change; the child still needed, for some reason to Rhaegar, to be named Aegon. It makes sense that he would expect his child to need to be named after maybe the most legendary of all Targaryens, Aegon the Conqueror.

This. 100%

Also am I the only one who thinks fAegon's existence is evidence that is actually Jon's name in the books? It just feels like GRRM's classic heel-turn style. Plus the fact the latest books have been slow to release, which implies the writing process has been slow, and since fAegon is a very late addition, I believe Jon=Aegon was already planned by GRRM but he couldn't get to that yet, so he introduced fAegon as filler in the meantime. Just like a lot of AFFC/ADWD plots, by the way.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you thought your Targaryen child was going to be part of a prophecy that would make the child special in some way, I would have thought Aegon would be the most likely name to choose, given how legendary Aegon the Conqueror was.

But he's legendary as a conqueror, not as a defender. And besides, Rhaegar already used the name. The three people who conquered Westeros weren't named Aegon, Rhaenys, and Rhaenys, they were named Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya. So doesn't it seem at all weird to you to go with Aegon, Rhaenys, and Aegon?

12 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I think any other Targaryen name would have been completely random. A lot of people suspected he was called Jaehaerys, but why was that?

I don't know of anyone who ever suggested Jaehaerys. I picked that name as an example specifically because it was totally random. Can you find any examples of anyone suggesting that, or are you just making assumptions again, as in the other thread when you insisted that everyone who theorized R+L=J always assumed it would be Aegon?

12 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Others thought Aemon, but why was that?

Out-of-universe, it connects him to Aemon the Dragonknight, and to Maester Aemon (both of whom had brothers named Aegon). The latter is obvious, as Jon's mentor; the former has many parallels—young Lord Commander (of the Kingsguard, not the Watch), gifted a Valyrian steel sword because he proved himself more worthy than the heir, noble and honest to a fault, fought as a mystery knight (just as Jon's mother may have), etc. He's also the guy who popularized the three-headed dragon motif, and R+L=J was all about creating the three heads for the dragon.

The in-universe justifications are a bit sketchier, but you can find them in the R+L=J threads. The simplest one is that Aemon the Dragonknight is a larger-than-life heroic figure to everyone in the realm, even a century after his death.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But he's legendary as a conqueror, not as a defender. And besides, Rhaegar already used the name. The three people who conquered Westeros weren't named Aegon, Rhaenys, and Rhaenys, they were named Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya. So doesn't it seem at all weird to you to go with Aegon, Rhaenys, and Aegon?

I don't know of anyone who ever suggested Jaehaerys. I picked that name as an example specifically because it was totally random. Can you find any examples of anyone suggesting that, or are you just making assumptions again, as in the other thread when you insisted that everyone who theorized R+L=J always assumed it would be Aegon?

Out-of-universe, it connects him to Aemon the Dragonknight, and to Maester Aemon (both of whom had brothers named Aegon). The latter is obvious, as Jon's mentor; the former has many parallels—young Lord Commander (of the Kingsguard, not the Watch), gifted a Valyrian steel sword because he proved himself more worthy than the heir, noble and honest to a fault, fought as a mystery knight (just as Jon's mother may have), etc. He's also the guy who popularized the three-headed dragon motif, and R+L=J was all about creating the three heads for the dragon.

The in-universe justifications are a bit sketchier, but you can find them in the R+L=J threads. The simplest one is that Aemon the Dragonknight is a larger-than-life heroic figure to everyone in the realm, even a century after his death.

No, it doesn't actually seem that weird to me as his two sons named Aegon wouldn't actually have the same mother. And I think it would be an interesting idea to have an Aegon win the Kingdoms and an Aegon defend them.

Do you think I just mean people on this forum? A friend of mine was convinced it was Jaehaerys based on the letter 'J'. As for your Aemon assessment, you made some good points. I also thought it would be interesting if Jon shared the same name with the first Targaryen he ever met, but, for the reasons I listed, Aegon works better for me.

Can you link me to the thread you mean where I say everyone believes that Aegon is his name? I genuinely cannot remember even suggesting on this forum before that I believed his name to be Aegon.

I have told you that this is my opinion. I could be totally wrong and Jon could be called Aerys, for all we know. I just think Aegon makes most since to me.

I have told you the evidence I am basing it on is just the way I have looked at it. Never once have I suggested it is set in stone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As was explained this episode by Samwell Tarly, Rhegar and Elia Martells mariage was Anulled which means there mariage to eachother NEVER happened period so any children produced during the first mariage now become bastards and give up up all inheritance. If the mariage was dissolved that would be different but since it was Anulled Rheagar technically has two sons named Aegon but only Jon is a true Targaryan by law.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ah, yeah and then in another incest round Firegon and Icegon would both make sweet sweet love to their older sister Rhaenys producing ultimate three-parented Targaryen - Songon Icerys Fireor.

Quote

As was explained this episode by Samwell Tarly, Rhegar and Elia Martells mariage was Anulled which means there mariage to eachother NEVER happened period so any children produced during the first mariage now become bastards and give up up all inheritance. If the mariage was dissolved that would be different but since it was Anulled Rheagar technically has two sons named Aegon but only Jon is a true Targaryan by law.

Do we even have any data proving that children conceived during annuled marriage are reduced to bastard status? Because it's not obvious - for instance Catholic Church considers kids concieved during such illusionary marriage to be legitimate.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ah, yeah and then in another incest round Firegon and Icegon would both make sweet sweet love to their older sister Rhaenys producing ultimate three-parented Targaryen - Songon Icerys Fireor.

Do we even have any data proving that children conceived during annuled marriage are reduced to bastard status? Because it's not obvious - for instance Catholic Church considers kids concieved during such illusionary marriage to be legitimate.

That definitely feels like the logical conclusion of this series.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I can't believe Jon will be Aegon in the books. Lyanna would have known Rhaegar already had a son named Aegon, and in the unlikely event that news of the sack of King's Landing had reached her, naming her own son after a dead elder sibling is plain morbid. As for Rhaegar somehow wanting to give two of his sons the same name, I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. Nobody, not even a Targaryen does that.

Personally my money is still on Jaehaerys. The name's been pretty much written out of the show (Jaehaerys II for example, who Rhaegar obviously took after) and I can see why it would be a target for simplification.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No, it doesn't actually seem that weird to me as his two sons named Aegon wouldn't actually have the same mother.

But it would still be two Aegons in the same generation with the same father.

There's a reason "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl" was a recurring joke on Newhart, not just a statement of fact: because it's so unusual that it's funny.

How many people have you met with a brother, or half-brother, with the same name? And it doesn't seem to be any more common in Westeros than it is in real life, based on either the book appendices or the show DVD extras. (Even less common, because real life has George Foreman to blow out the curve for everyone else…)

57 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Can you link me to the thread you mean where I say everyone believes that Aegon is his name?

Sorry, I mixed you up with someone else who'd responded on the same other thread as you. Apologies for the confusion.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do we even have any data proving that children conceived during annuled marriage are reduced to bastard status? Because it's not obvious - for instance Catholic Church considers kids concieved during such illusionary marriage to be legitimate.

If you watch the westeros.org video on annulment, they did some research and concluded that in the real life middle ages the kids usually weren't bastardized unless there was an explicit proclamation saying they were, but sometimes they were, and the only book example seems to imply that Westeros works the same way. (And since Linda went into that research hoping to prove that annulment always bastardizes the children and therefore it was a huge plot hole in the episode, as she'd said in her episode review, I'd trust their conclusion that found the opposite.)

I can't see any reason why Rhaegar would want to delegitimize his first two kids, so most likely the annulment left them still Targaryens, but we can't be sure.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But it would still be two Aegons in the same generation with the same father.

There's a reason "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl" was a recurring joke on Newhart, not just a statement of fact: because it's so unusual that it's funny.

How many people have you met with a brother, or half-brother, with the same name? And it doesn't seem to be any more common in Westeros than it is in real life, based on either the book appendices or the show DVD extras. (Even less common, because real life has George Foreman to blow out the curve for everyone else…)

Sorry, I mixed you up with someone else who'd responded on the same other thread as you. Apologies for the confusion.

Naming children after death siblings was/is not that unusual in some cultures. Wikipedia has an article on this and sites Salvador Dali, Ludwig van Beethoven and Vincent Van Gogh as examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necronym)

Edit: one example in fiction would be William Adama in Caprica/Battlestar Galactica.